Question for ex-mo's...are you untrustworthy?

[_malkie]

Not all ex-members, just those who reveal these things to the world, when they said they would not

Should former LDS believers continue to wear garments?

Should former LDS believers give their time, talents, and energy to the LDS church?

Should former Jews continue to not eat pork?

Should former cult members continue to donate their belonging to their leader if they promised they would?

Should former Amish not use electricity because they will break a promise?

Should former Catholics continue to not use birth control?

I think it is safe to say that most people believe that once one leaves a religion or disbelieves a religion, they are no longer bound by the promises they made under the false belief. No?

~dancer~

To take the Catholic part a little further, I believe that in Latin America there are many former Catholic LDS in positions such as Bishop & Stake President, for example.

Many of them likely promised (to god) that they would bring up their children in the Holy Catholic faith. If they are also godparents, they made a similar promise to foster the Catholic faith in the children of their compadres and comadres.

Are they untrustworthy if they now bring their children up LDS, and/or do not encourage their godchildren to be good little Catholics?

And can members really sustain and support such untrustworthy people in their high callings in the LDS church?

[_the road to hana]

To take the Catholic part a little further, I believe that in Latin America there are many former Catholic LDS in positions such as Bishop & Stake President, for example.

Many of them likely promised (to god) that they would bring up their children in the Holy Catholic faith. If they are also godparents, they made a similar promise to foster the Catholic faith in the children of their compadres and comadres.

Are they untrustworthy if they now bring their children up LDS, and/or do not encourage their godchildren to be good little Catholics?

And can members really sustain and support such untrustworthy people in their high callings in the LDS church?

How can any converts to Mormonism be trusted, if they left, betrayed or disavowed their former religion?

How can any of our ancestors who converted to Mormonism be trusted, if they did that?

[_skippy the dead]

In this case, the promise is essentially to yourself. If you decide to relieve yourself of the obligation, then there's no problem. In fact, a friend of mine did this exact same thing. He saw a documentary on slaughterhouses and vowed never to eat meat again. But things changed, and he determined that it was okay to eat meat, and revoked the vow. Easy enough.

If we apply that to temple covenants, if there is no particular person to whom the temple covenants were made, then it is easy enough to relieve oneself of such covenants should circumstances change.

It may not make me see such a person as dishonest, but it would make me think that he or she is wishy-washy.

"Wishy-washy" is overly simplistic. I've actually been giving the general question a good deal of thought. There are some interesting implications. What it boils down to is that certain things may have been sincerely said under a certain set of circumstances. If later it is revealed that those circumstances were not as originally thought, it is natural and logical for one to evaluate what had been done, to determine if it was, indeed, a valid act to make such covenants. If not, then there's no reason to artificially maintain them.

Kind of like when I was 18 and registered to vote, I aligned with the *shudder* Republican party. It was the Reagan years and I was at BYU - it seemed the thing to do. But very quickly as I explored the world of politics, I realized that I was not a Republican. Am I supposed to remain registered with the party, even though I now knew that it was not suitable for me? Hell to the no. The world view changed, and I made an informed decision to change with it. (Admittedly it's not a perfect analogy, but I'm trying to find some way to illustrate how such a change is based on reasoned consideration, and not being "wishy-washy").

If certain facts facilitate entering into the temple covenants, and those facts are not actually facts, that makes a difference. Say I make a promise to God, but I later realize there is no God. Do I still keep a promise I voluntarily undertook to a non-entity? Reason says no.

But I thought you said that the covenants were not explicitly made to God. I suppose there are a number of factors which may facilitate various promises, but when I promise to pay back a loan I may feel that it'll be a simple enough matter, yet when the bills keep piling up I may soon realize that it isn't as easy as I had imagined especially if it's an adjustable rate loan and the economy heads south despite what I felt was certain.

The promise to God thing was a hypothetical for illustration.

But as to your other point, the implication is that one would find living up to the covenants "not easy". I don't know if you meant to make that connection, but it really has nothing to do with the subject. It harks back to the fallacy that all who leave the church do so because it was too hard to live the teachings. In addition, your hypothetical presents an either/or scenario - you can either pay the other bills or your loan. Maintaining the subject temple covenants isn't that kind of scenario. It's not like I have to choose between going on vacation or not revealing the names and signs. There aren't external pressures that require me to abandon the covenants, or make contradictory covenants.

To take your hypothetical one step further, though - if your initial promise (to repay the loan) turns out to not meet your current needs (other bills), you can rework your loan. Abandon the current loan, and get another one that suits your needs. See how that works? And it's not even being wishy-washy.

[_Blixa]

Hey, back atcha beastie and skippy.

I'm only here now and again to pm with board friends; this thread, mainly the OP, is why I've lost interest with this "discussion" board. Although I think asbestosman is a decent sort and this kind of back and forth could be useful to him, the very idea of this thread is insulting, not to mention too far from reality-as-it-is-currently-defined-by-contemporary-civilization-and-has-been-defined-historically-by-past-societies-and-civilizations.

I've enjoyed and learned from exchanges here with some who are still members of "the church." But too often useful (and actual) discussion gets mud tracked all over it from the various MAD provocateurs who've slithered over with no more intention than to stir the pot for their own (admitted) "fun." And while stuff like "manors" and "sensanalize" are always good for a snark, there's beefier buffets of cluelessness on Fark.

Besides, its summer and I've got work to do.

[_asbestosman]

Kind of like when I was 18 and registered to vote, I aligned with the *shudder* Republican party. It was the Reagan years and I was at BYU - it seemed the thing to do. But very quickly as I explored the world of politics, I realized that I was not a Republican. Am I supposed to remain registered with the party, even though I now knew that it was not suitable for me? Hell to the no. The world view changed, and I made an informed decision to change with it. (Admittedly it's not a perfect analogy, but I'm trying to find some way to illustrate how such a change is based on reasoned consideration, and not being "wishy-washy").

Sure, but one generally doesn't promise to dedicate one's life to a policital party. The Catholic issue others raised is a good point about reasoning and changing despite promises, however I grant that those promises are made to other people. Furthermore those promises tend to conflict with the new worldview one obtains when joining the church. When leaving the church, I think most people feel no moral obligation to divulge temple covenants except perhaps a few who feel morally obligated to fight the church (evangelicals perhaps), but I don't think most ex-mos fit that mold. Without the moral obligation to disclose the temple covenants I think it wrong to do so after the promises which were made.

But as to your other point, the implication is that one would find living up to the covenants "not easy". I don't know if you meant to make that connection, but it really has nothing to do with the subject.

No, I didn't mean for that connection. I only meant it as far as illustrating that sometimes we can still have obligations when we don't completely understand all the bases of the promises. While I believe that leaving is a sin, I don't think it's necessarily done out of laziness or a desire to sin. I think some may be honestly deceived--the scriptures speak of times so trying that the very elect would be deceived if it were possible.

To take your hypothetical one step further, though - if your initial promise (to repay the loan) turns out to not meet your current needs (other bills), you can rework your loan. Abandon the current loan, and get another one that suits your needs. See how that works? And it's not even being wishy-washy.

Alright, that's fair. How about this instead. Let's say I sign a non-disclosure agreement with a company but later discover some facts that make me wish I had never signed such a thing in the first place. Let's say that what I discovered isn't illegal, but it is something I strongly disagree with. Can I somehow rework that contract or otherwise disclose that which I promised not to? Now I grant that the company I made the agreement with definately exists so this is not a perfect analogy. I only intend it to the extent that misjudging the bases which facilitate entering into a contract may not remove one from being obligated to keep it.

[_asbestosman]

Although I think asbestosman is a decent sort and this kind of back and forth could be useful to him,

While I'm happy to learn a thing or two in discussions, is it really the case that this is not useful for anyone else?

[_skippy the dead]

Now I grant that the company I made the agreement with definitely exists so this is not a perfect analogy.

And this makes all the difference. There's an actual other party to whom the obligation is owed.

For me, that's not the case with temple covenants.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating that everybody run out and broadcast the signs and tokens. I don't think I ever have, but I would honestly answer a question about them if asked. But in general, there seems to be an effort by some LDS members to disparage those who leave. Calling those who do not maintain what are now irrelevant temple secrets "untrustworthy" is part of that effort. It's disgraceful. And despite Paul Ray and Pa Pa's protestations on the other board to the contrary, I expect that there is something in their conduct that puts them on the same "level" that they've placed those who leave - and it just makes them human, not evil or bad. But they cannot accept that someone may have a rational, well-considered reason for leaving the religion. So they vilify them. You've done that a bit in your previous post by saying people who leave are deceived, which is essentially saying that they are aligned with Satan. That's not a charitable way to look at others.

So while I've been happily discussing a very narrow issue, the implications are so much broader.

[_Bond...James Bond]

And while stuff like "manors" and "sensanalize" are always good for a snark, there's beefier buffets of cluelessness on Fark.

Hey Blixa! I usually give people breaks when it comes to spelling, this is a message board not an academic conference. [plus I'm crushed I didn't earn any LOLs for my "serfs up" joke. I thought that was golden but only a history major like me would get it.]

Besides, its summer and I've got work to do.

Hope its going well. I've been the same way trying to cut down my posting amount.

[_asbestosman]

So they vilify them. You've done that a bit in your previous post by saying people who leave are deceived, which is essentially saying that they are aligned with Satan. That's not a charitable way to look at others.

I don't see why. Don't you think I've been deceived into staying? Would the word "mistaken" convey better semantic value? If so, by all means go ahead and read my post as such.

And this makes all the difference. There's an actual other party to whom the obligation is owed.

For me, that's not the case with temple covenants.

But by not following that covenant, you hurt other people without need. That's why it's not quite the same as a promise not made to anyone in particular but which nobody will be hurt from having you change your mind.

[_Sethbag]

Alright, that's fair. How about this instead. Let's say I sign a non-disclosure agreement with a company but later discover some facts that make me wish I had never signed such a thing in the first place.

What if the information you learn makes you realize that you were induced to sign the NDA under false pretenses? What if the inducement to sign turned out to be fraudulent?

Here's the bottom line. Every single temple covenant made is made, as is depicted in the movie, at the request of Elohim ("go down and put Adam and Eve under covenant to...") by someone who is represented as having authority from Elohim to do so. Elohim does not actually exist, and nobody on Earth can therefor have this non-existent entity's "authority". The entire premise of the covenants is fraudulent.

Then there is the matter of consideration. The Celestial Kingdom does not exist. You will not, no matter how faithful you are to the LDS Church, ever rule in this non-existent place as a King and a Priest to a Most High Imaginary Being. The reward that you are promised in return for your faithfulness with these covenants is an illusion, a mirage, a pipe dream. Therefor you are not receiving the consideration that was offered up in return for entering the covenants.

Between the fraudulent representation of the covenant administrators as authorized representatives of a being who is in fact no more than a figment of our imaginations, and the fact that you will not ever get the promised Celestial reward, it is abundantly clear that there can in fact be no binding covenant or promise on your part.

The entire "covenant breaker" epithet is just a mind-control gambit. If someone starts to get an inkling that things aren't as they seem, there's still this pressure to "obey" covenants that were entered into, which can keep at least some of these questioners from taking it to the next step. Witness how long it takes a lot of people who start to see and comprehend that Joseph Smith invented and created this church, and not God, to stop wearing their garments. It's like they can know something with their mind, but still be afraid to act on that knowledge, because a fear of disobeying God or his fraudulent covenants, still has a powerful effect on them.

Let's say that what I discovered isn't illegal, but it is something I strongly disagree with. Can I somehow rework that contract or otherwise disclose that which I promised not to? Now I grant that the company I made the agreement with definitely exists so this is not a perfect analogy. I only intend it to the extent that misjudging the bases which facilitate entering into a contract may not remove one from being obligated to keep it.

As for companies that actually exist, if the company committed fraud in inducing you to enter into a contract under false pretenses, and you can demonstrate that in court, then they could not enforce that contract because, in fact, it would not be valid.

As for the temple covenants, a covenant made upon inducement by someone representing themselves as having authority from a being who in fact does not exist, is no covenant at all.

Let's put it this way. If I told a group of children that I was the duly appointed and empowered representative of Santa Claus, and they believed me, and I placed them under covenant to obey the will of Santa Clause, and give all of their time and talents to the building up of the Kingdom of Santa Clause, as lead by me, do you think they would be morally obligated to continue obeying me, and donating their time and talents to me, on the basis of this covenant? Overlook the fact that they were children here, and just think about this as a parallel situation. I think you'd have to agree that nobody could, or should feel themselves obligated to obey covenants made to Santa Clause, once they learn or realize that Santa isn't actually real, and the person representing themselves as Santa's Helper in fact is a fraud.